Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/185/2021

Dharambir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

SH. Anil Phogat

14 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

               

                                                Complaint Case No. 185 of 2021

                                                Date of Institution: 16.8.2021

                                                Date of Decision:       14.03.2024

 

Dharambir son of Shri Amar Singh @ Aman Singh, age 56 years resident of village Badrai, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

Mobile No.9991462728

 

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Manager/Director.
2. Manager, Bank of India, near Bus Stand, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                        ....OPs/Respondents. 

                COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -    Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Anil Phogat, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Satender Ghanghas, Adv. for OP Nos. 1.

                   Shri Karamvir Singh Chhikara, Adv. for OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:-

 

1.             Dharambir (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with the averments that he got insured his crop of cotton under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) by paying insurance premium amount of Rs. 4620.06, which was got deducted through OP No.2 bank to the OP No.1 insurance company. It is averred that the complainant suffered losses of 100% of cotton crop of Kharif 2020 due to hailstones fall.  It is further averred that the OP No. 1 has sent insurance receipt by post in which village name shown Kapuri instead of village Badrai due to wrong information supplied by the OP No. 2 Bank, as such claim was not considered.  It is further averred that due to act of the OP No. 2 the complainant has suffered mental, financial & physical loss. It is further averred that the complainant has sent a legal notice to OP No. 2 with the request to correct village name as Badari instead of village Kapuri in the record and to inform to the OP No. 1, but the OPs in collusion with each other credited Rs.4971/- on 15.2.2021 in the account of the complainant, which was paid by the complainant to OP No.1 as premium of insurance. It is further averred that the OPs have failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to make the payment of claim of Rs. 33,000.44/- along with the compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.            Upon notice, the OP No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement alleging therein that the complainant had got insured his agricultural land situated at village/notified area of village Kapuri (171), District Charkhi Dadri vide policy No.OG-21-1207-5015-00008729 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, covering the crop season of Kharif 2020 for the cultivation of cotton and providing insurance cover at individual farm level to crop covering losses due to occurrence of localized perils/ calamities viz. landslide, hailstorm and inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot.  It is averred that there was no intimation received regarding localize claim from the farmer.  However, yield claim is paid to the banker of insured.  Thus, answering respondent has already paid the yield claim amount of Rs. 4971/- with UTR No. N046211408221747 dated 16.2.2021 to the claimant/complainant in full and final settlement of claim.  It is further averred that above mentioned policy for Kharif 2020 was issued by the OP company under the Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, therefore, the said policy was to be governed and operated strictly as per terms and conditions as envisaged under the said Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is averred that the insurance company received the claim intimation and survey was conducted and it was found that the localized claim is payable. Hence, localized claim is paid to the complainant bank. Thus the answering OP has already paid the claim amount of Rs. 4971/- on 16.2.2021 with UTR No. N046211408221747.  Thus the claim of complainant has duly been settled as per the set norms. As such, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the answering OP.

3.             The OP No. 2 in its written statement averred that as per the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna answering OP debited Rs.4620.06 as premium for insurance of cotton crop for an area measuring 13 Kanal 12 Marla and remitted the same to OP No. 1 mentioning the correct name and address and correct village name of the complainant.  It is further averred that if the village name is changed after submission of data to the portal of OP No. 1 due to any technical fault then answering OP cannot be made liable for that.  It is further averred that details of revenue record of insured crop also submitted by the answering OP to OP No. 1 and the record itself shows that the area of record falls in the limit of village Badrai and OP No. 1 as per policy scheme sends the message to the insured person on his mobile no. mentioning all the details such as name, village name, crop area etc. for verification and it was the duty of insured to check the message and got the correction done, if any mistake found in the message.  It is further averred that the answering OP deposited Rs. 4971/- on 15.2.2021 in the account of complainant as refund of the insurance premium.  It is averred that the contract of insurance came into existence between the complainant and the OP No. 1 and hence, the OP No. 2 is not liable to pay any amount on account of said insurance or any other amount to complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.

4.             In the evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C- on 9.6.2022.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. RW-1/A and documents as Ex. RW-1 to Ex. RW-4 and closed the evidence on 18.10.2023. The OP No.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. RW-2/A and closed the evidence on 18.10.2023.

6.             We have heard the arguments of representative/learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP no.1 reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

7.           We have observed that the complainant by filing his affidavit (Ex.CW-1/A), has corroborated the contents of his complaint as true and correct. As per jamabandi (Ex.C1/A) for the year 2017-18, the name of said Dharambir son of Sh. Amar Singh is mentioned. It is averred that the same was duly insured by the OP vide CSC application (Ex. C-4) for Rs. 33,000.44/- after getting premium of govt. share Rs. 2970.04/- and farmer share as Rs. 1650.02/-.

                   In order to prove the contents of complaint that the complainant suffered losses of cotton crop, the learned counsel for complainant has placed on record a letter No. 5187/OK dt.17.09.2020 duly issued by the Tehsildar, Badhra in regard to regarding  getting a special girdawari done in the Kharif 2020 crop for the  damage caused to the crops due to water logging and white fly, green oil and Ukheda diseases, it was certified that in crops of paddy, cotton and Sugarcane damage was estimated more than 50% and less than 75% average of which work out to 62% for kharif crop in 2020.

8.              On perusal of documents placed on record, it stands established that the complainant suffered 62% losses of cotton crop of 0.40469 hectare land, which was insured by the OP under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Rs. 33,000.44/- and the same was destroyed due to water logging and white fly, green oil and Ukheda diseases. Now we have to decide whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation from the OP no.1 and for what amount?

9.                OP no.2 i.e. Bank of India is intermediary for insurance company and claimant who debited insurance premium and credited amount of Rs.4,971/- on 16.02.2021 to the account of the complainant. The averment of OP no.2 that amount of Rs. 4,971/- was paid towards refund of the insurance premium is wrong and not acceptable as OP no.1 has confirmed that localized claim was settled and paid for Rs. 4,971/- on 16.02.2021. OP no.2 is directed to avoid giving any false statement to the Commission and other authorities.

10.              The counsel for OP no.1 has placed on record affidavit (Ex. RW-1/A) whereby Eileen Rose Tirkey, authorized representative on behalf of OP no.1 deposed on oath that the answering OP has already paid the yield claim amount of Rs. 4971/-with UTR No. N046211408221747 dated 16.2.2021 to the claimant-complainant but besides this, it stands clear that the OP no.1 did not pay the adequate claim amount to the complainant as the 0.40469 hectare cotton crop of complainant which was insured for Rs. 33,000.44/-and the complainant had suffered 62% losses to his cotton crop of 0.40469 hectare insured land as per report of Tehsildar. The disbursal of part payment of claim by the OP no.1 makes clear the fact that the claim of complainant was genuine and hence, the OP no.1 settled claim for part amount and credited Rs. 4971/- into the account of complainant. In our considered view, after calculation the amount of 62% of the sum insured amount to Rs. 33,000.44/- comes to Rs. 20,460.27/- approximately.

11.              In view of aforesaid discussion, findings and observations, we are of the considered view that as the OP no.1 failed to give the adequate claim to the complainant and disbursed Rs. 4971/- to the complainant instead of Rs. 20,460.27/-(rounded to Rs.20,460/-) for which he was entitled  to. The OP no.1 has committed negligence and deficiency in service on their part and due to this reason, the complainant had to suffer mental agony, harassment as well financial losses at the hands of OP no.1.

                       We, therefore, direct the OP no.1 to pay compensation of Rs. Rs. 15,489/- (i.e. Rs.20,460/- entitled claim amount minus Rs. 4,971/- already paid on 16.02.2021) to the complainant as compensation on account of 62% loss of 0.40469 insured cotton crop (which was insured for Rs. 33000.44/-). It is made clear that the above ordered awarded amount shall be paid by the OP no.1 to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.08.2021 till realization of final payment.

12.         The OP no.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

13.      The present complaint stands partly allowed in the manner as indicated above.

14.       The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP no.1 for the delayed period.

 

15.              Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

16.              File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: -14.03.2024